The story

It’s the 21st century. The deforestation process is eating up many, many acres of forest every day. The process isn’t very complicated; it usually goes by the principle of simply cutting down all the trees. However, sometimes there happens to be one of those bothersome villages in the way of simply cutting down everything.

The village dubbed “Lycias” is a special case. Its existence was unknown and was discovered while cutting down the forest near it. Thanks to the environmentalists, its existence was reported before it was cut down. The boss would rather have ignored it and let it get destroyed like the rest of the forest; the village wan uninhabited no nobody would’ve known.

The buildings looked about 5-6 centuries old and were partially overgrown. The village had to be investigated by an army of archeologists of various agencies. Which meant delay in the process of cutting down the forest. The boss was not happy.

Despite looking many centuries old, the archeologists discovered that some building were build less than two centuries ago: most of the buildings were build from wood, which does decay.

A significant part of the village was severely damaged; all buildings were collapsed. The other part was still relatively intact. Not far from Lycias, there were remains of something that could have been a village too, but was fully destroyed.

There were, however, not many signs of destruction in the forest between the two villages. At least, there were many old trees growing between the villages, about the same as the trees in the remaining forest. The forest closely around the village was far younger and thinner.

A graveyard was present, but a few of skeletons were found unburied. The majority of those skeletons were lied in the collapsed buildings, but not all of them. Those who did not die by the collapse of buildings and were yet unburied were probably the last villagers alive.

Plenty to research here. Too bad, the archeologist didn’t collaborate as a team, but all wanted themselves to be the one with the grand discoveries. They got a little bit.. “hostile” to each other.

Roles

Archeologist (x5)
They are the townies. They do not possesses any special skill other than the ability to spend and extravagant amount of time with rocks and their ability to cast one vote each day.Victory condition I: all Corrupted Archeologists must die. Must survive; (Town victory)Victory condition II: postmortem victory.

Doctor (x3)
They are supposed to protect the archeologists from all sorts of things. They actually joined the expedition because they thought they’d have little work to do, having only 10 patients distributed over three doctors. They were wrong.
Also, they cannot protect doctors because of mysterious and inexplicable forces.Victory condition I: all Corrupted Archeologists must die. Must survive; (Town victory)Victory condition II: postmortem victory.

Corrupted Archeologist (x2)
The mafia; they are actually brothers who both became archeologists. They do work as a team, and for some reason, have got way more killing potential than the others. They get one NK each night.Victory condition: the number of corrupted archeologists must be equal to or greater than the sum of Doctors and non-corrupted Archeologists. Must survive. (Mafia victory)

Postmortem victory conditions: (all must be met)
+ You must’ve been NK’ed by a Corrupted Archeologist;
+ When you got NK’ed, you must have known who the Corrupted Archeologists were;
+ The town must win the game.

Rules

Days will take as long as necessary for the discussion to settle. When the discussion is settled or seems futile, I will announce that the day ends in 24 hours. After the day ends, the night begins.

Nights will last 48 hours. After the night ends, the day begins.

This is a game; when you are killed, you do not die in real life. If you were looking for a mafia conference, you’re at the wrong address.

When the game starts, everyone gets assigned a role. This role may give you special abilities during the night. Your role will not be publicized (by me) until you die or the game end.

Everyone who has signed up and isn’t dead gets one vote per day. These votes may be changed the same day they were placed. Votes expire at the end of the day; you can’t stack them up. Votes can only be cast by posting them in this thread.

At the end of the day, the person who has got the most votes will get lynched. If there’s a tie in votes, we shall settle the tiebreaker through a game of rock-paper-scissors. If you do not like this randomness, avoid ties.

You cannot vote for “no lynch”.

Those who are dead do not post in this thread or reveal confidential information until the game has ended. Obey this rule.

If you have not signed up for this game, you do not post in this this thread while the game is going on.

Editing your post during the game is allowed only under the following circumstances:
+ You can fix/correct typo’s or grammatical errors freely;
+ You can add stuff to your post if the new stuff is marked with an “*Edit:*” and your post was posted less than one hour ago.
In other circumstances, you must make a new post (EBWOP). You cannot remove content from your post or delete your post if the game hasn’t ended.

Do not sign up more than once by using alts.

If you do not post in this thread for two in-game days, you may be modkilled or replaced. More rules about inactivity may be invoked when the average snail starts making more progress than this game does.

If you no longer feel like playing this game, you can whisper me, which means that you can get replaced without holding up the game.

The game ends when any party wins according to their primary victory condition (postmortem victories don’t end the game.)
Everyone who hasn’t won when the game ends, loses.

Violating these rules may result in a modkill and possibly a ban from my future game(s)*.
*That does not imply there will be any of them.

There are no rules against lying or whispering.

All alive players need to post at least once every real-life week. Days do not last longer than two real-life weeks.

I will send the deceased one a whisper with a little story asking him to guess who the mafia are. The whisper must be answered before the day ends.

Trivia: the postmortem victory is designed as a compromise between “You win when your team wins.” and “You only win if you survive.” The former one would lead to excessive amounts of winners, whereas the latter simply lets the mafia decide who loses, possibly the players who contribute the most. With postmortem, the mafia can no longer swing the axe of “YOULOSE” against those who have played the well enough to accurately guess who the mafia are.

What was this supposed to be?

Whoops…
I’ve completed the sentence now. “Everyone who hasn’t won when the game ends, loses.”

Can’t you just lynch whoever reaches majority first, like in other mafias? I don’t think there’s a fat chance of a tie in votes, but, just in case it happens, this seems like the best way out.

There would be little advantage in doing so. If a tie in votes results in a predetermined result, the people who voted the projected loser will be like “Yes, we’ve won. Now we only need to keep this up until the end of the day.” and the people who voted somebody else will be like “Oh my god, we need to get another voter quickly!”.

It also makes the mafia feel slightly more secure, knowing that despite there being half the people voting against their member, he won’t get lynched because they got half the votes on somebody else earlier. The mafia does have the power to get votes landed quickly though voting together, if they feel it’s worth the risk.

Lastly, there’s not much reason why the one who got the votes first is the better choice to lynch.

Due to the clause that the day lasts as long as necessary for the discussion to settle, it is quite unlikely that a tie will happen. But if it happens, both parties will be interested in settling the dispute.

Can you please argument why lynching the first one is a better way out?

There would be little advantage in doing so. If a tie in votes results in a predetermined result, the people who voted the projected loser will be like “Yes, we’ve won. Now we only need to keep this up until the end of the day.” and the people who voted somebody else will be like “Oh my god, we need to get another voter quickly!”.

Well, that is also true in your RPS system. Only, it is worse. They will be like “Oh God, hope our guy sends in paper and the other guy sends in scissors”, which is rather silly, not to mention out of context.

Basically, you think that a tie in votes bringing about a predetermined result is bad. The reason I think that the opposite is bad because of the uncertainty feel it will produce. If A and B both reach majority, town has no idea of who is going to get lynched if the DL is reached. So they don’t know if they really need to defend the other guy getting lynched, since for all they know, he COULD get lynched.

The mafia does have the power to get votes landed quickly though voting together, if they feel it’s worth the risk.

AKA scumwagoning? If they vote in quick succession to ensure majority first, won’t that be an extremely obvious scumtell, resulting in them getting borked?

Lastly, there’s not much reason why the one who got the votes first is the better choice to lynch.

Point. But there isn’t much reason why the one who was unluckier is the better choice to lynch.

Can you please argument why lynching the first one is a better way out?

For one, it makes the lynch less uncertain, and encourages the players voting on the ‘losing’ wagon to prove their point with appropriate arguments. Secondly, I think it will save you time, and make the game less luck-based.

Of course, both lynching mechanics are inherently flawed, but asking for the inclusion of a Judge just in case of a highly unlikely draw is a bit too much. I’ll shut up now.

Victory condition: the number of corrupted archeologists must be equal to or greater than the sum of Doctors and non-corrupted Archeologists. Must survive.

No, it isn’t. In the RPS system, both parties will try to get one more vote, instead of one party trying to get a vote and the other party trying to keep votes as the are.

However, you may have a point about the town just hoping their guy will get lynched rather than actively trying to lynch him.

AKA scumwagoning? If they vote in quick succession to ensure majority first, won’t that be an extremely obvious scumtell, resulting in them getting borked?

Doesn’t have to be in quick succession. It can be easily spread out over a few hours since the town may be rather slow. The town wonders “Is this the right guy to lynch”, the mafia wonders “Can I lynch this guy without making myself suspicious?”. The latter question is easier to resolve than the former, so the mafia may passively be quicker to vote than the town when they’re not actively guarding their innocence. Since there were other townies voting for guy X already, the wouldn’t be too remarkable. The deal of protecting guy Y at the cost of a little bit of suspicion may be worth it.

Secondly, I think it will save you time, and make the game less luck-based.

Valid point.

The rules about tiebreaking will not be changed for this game for the simple reason that I’m trying to avoid changing the rules unless something is seriously borked (loopholes); the tiebreaking system is not broken enough to warrant changing the rules. I may reconsider using the system for eventual future games though.

Hey, do you like games? So do we — that’s what makes Kongregate the best source of free games online. We have thousands upon thousands of free online games, from both one-man indies and large studios, rated and filtered so you can play the best of the best. Read more »